A History Of Britain: The Fate Of Empire 1776-2000 (2002) - Plot & Excerpts
Simon Schama ends his narrative history of Britain with this third volume, ‘The Fate of Empire’, covering the era 1776 to the millennium. This final volume is in itself a five star work; ending an overall five star series.At one point Schama recounts the young Churchill reading Macaulay and describing this historian as: “The epitome of what a historian should be: an engaged citizen, a public teacher for the times, and not least, an unapologetic best-seller.” Hmm. Is this at all tongue in cheek describing at once Macaulay, the future Churchill and of course Schama himself?In this volume Schama is at his best recounting events from an oblique perspective, utilising throughout the British literary giants of the day to try to illustrate the growth of a distinct British identity as the island nation’s empire declines from its peak. With the American Independence and the French Revolution Britain had to follow or evolve and the internal conflict is illustrated through Coleridge and Wordsworth. The industrial revolution had left a changed workforce and a society that needed a voice, which Schama illustrates with a very personal account of Victoria leading in to the Edwardian suffragettes and growth of the labour movement using Shaw and H.G.Wells. Churchill provides enough literary reference of his own to cover two world wars but the extended reference to George Orwell and his seeming contradictions are added to brilliant effect to highlight the struggle between patriotic war effort and domestic socio-political upheaval.I finished this after watching Danny Boyle’s eccentric and quirky Olympic opening ceremony, and whilst I am not suggesting that Schama’s history is as off the wall as that, it made me reflect on how Schama also looks to describe an event using and often less used character. The seeds of a ‘British revolution’ and the growth of a conservationist conscience are combined in the works of Newcastle’s Thomas Bewick whose etchings hid a social comment whilst he debated the need for change in the back rooms of ‘The Blackie Boy’ pub - it’s still there, I’ve drank there often and had no idea. Women’s emancipation tied to the French Revolution are seen through Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley’s mother, and the Crimean War uses Mary Seacole rather than the more usual Florence Nightingale.To cover the whole of British history in under 2000 pages is always going to be difficult given that Britain once held such a prominent position in world events. The author has to be selective and concentrate on how each period shaped the next using a thematic style throughout. Schama achieves this using his background in art and is particularly effective when using literary characters in the later periods. As in his TV programs he can be occasionally irritating and his usually fluid style sometimes lapses into overly clever and confusing syntax. These are minor criticisms. If you want a broad-brush but effective introduction to this subject then I recommend.
I'll sum up my review of all three parts to his trilogy in this, the final volume. The great thing about British history is that there can be and are so many people of so many nationalities and viewpoints who have taken the trouble to research and write about it. This means that unlike many nations we are constantly able to reassess our role in history and see ourselves from both internal and external angles. Schama takes the history we learned in school and puts some meat on the bony dates and battles. He dispels many myths and shows us that far from being interested in Imperial glory, Britain was far more interested in security and money and getting more of each of them. He is happy to gently debunk all our myths and turn a mirror on ourselves. I think all countries should have histories like this - would do a lot to reduce some of the chauvinism and bigotry around the world
What do You think about A History Of Britain: The Fate Of Empire 1776-2000 (2002)?
This is the most narratively obtuse of the trilogy. I think my expectations were set high by the first volume which I loved. It was narrative, and factual and enjoyable. The narrative in this volume follows certain historical figures within the time period and assumes you know a fair amount of history for the context. The period between 1776 and 2000. Unfortunately WW II was covered in less than a 100 pages with the focus figures being Churchill and George Orwell. I liked it but I could use more context.
—Craig Tyler
An interesting take on a large portion of British history, this work focuses not on a truly chronological progression of the empire, but on various figures, many of who are not well known, meandering back and forth along the progression of time to describe both their place and their effect on history. Of particular note was the strong presence of women in the work, not merely the few known entities of the Victorian era, such as the Pankhursts and Florence Nightengale, but also many less-remembered names who nevertheless had a strong impact on their contemporaries and a role in shaping history.
—Lisa C
I purchased this book as a reference source for a college assignment and have found it both really useful and informative.Schama's third work in his trilogy; this book outlines changes in Britain from 1776 thus is largely about the industrial revolution and social reform. This is believed to be the best of the three part series and can easily be read without picking up the first two parts.Schama has his own unique way of telling things and as with all Historians, he has areas where you can see the writers opinion and personal interests in areas of history and antidotes.I would suggest if you were to read this, but also read a similar book by another author to vary your sources and eliminate bias but I would say that as a teacher.At times I found this book slightly hard going. My recommendation would be to read this if you have a love of this period.... But perhaps read Andrew Marr's similar piece of work which I found to be an easier and slightly more enjoyable first.
—Giles Knight
